DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e). The provisional Application No. 63/545,772, filed on 10/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2025 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 09/19/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean et al. (US 20240199153 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Bean, in view of Ewel et al. (US 20170225665 A1), herein after will be referred to as Ewel, and in further view of Decker et al. (US 20210253071 A1), herein after will be referred to as Decker.
Regarding Claim 1, Bean teaches a method of trailer safety control, the method to be implemented by a trailer safety system that includes a trailer safety device adapted to be mounted on a trailer (A smart trailer system mounted on a trailer that implements safety and security controls; [0008] [0024]),
the trailer safety device including a processing unit, a charging unit, a state monitor and a wireless communication unit that are electrically connected to the processing unit (A master controller electrically connected to a plurality of sensor interface boards, power management unit (PMU), and cellular/Wi-Fi modems; [0026] [0028] [0033] [0036]),
a battery that is electrically connected to the charging unit (A backup battery connected to the PMU to power the system; [0031]),
the method comprising: when the charging unit receives an external power supply from an external power supply terminal, the processing unit controlling the charging unit to charge the battery using the external power supply (The PMU receives tractor power and manages the charging of the battery; [0030] [0032]),
and the processing unit operating in an active mode that includes operations of, establishing a wireless network connection with an electronic device via the wireless communication unit (The system establishes a wireless connection with the user’s mobile device; [0037] [0069]),
controlling the state monitor to monitor trailer states that include a trailer connection status indicating a status of connection of the trailer with the tow vehicle (The system monitors the connection status by sensing voltage at the connector; [0226]).
Bean does not explicitly teach a breakaway switch that is electrically connected to the battery, the breakaway switch having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, and, when the breakaway switch is in the conducting state, providing electric power from the battery to an electronic braking system that is mounted on the trailer for activating the electronic braking system.
However, Ewel discloses an electromechanical trailer break-away switch system. Ewel teaches a trailer break-away switch that energizes a towed trailer brake in a decoupling event of a trailer that is connected to the stored energy battery source ([0022]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a breakaway switch that is electrically connected to the battery because the trailer break-away switch is connected to the stored energy battery source. Ewel further teaches a normal operation where the switch operates as an open switch between the battery and when an unintended decoupling event occurs from the towing vehicle, a pin is pulled to activate the switch to electrically power the trailer brake ([0022]). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed limitation of the breakaway switch having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, and, when the breakaway switch is in the conducting state, providing electric power from the battery to an electronic braking system that is mounted on the trailer for activating the electronic braking system because in the normal operation mode, the switch is in an open state, analogous to the non-conducting state, and when the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle the switch is activated to a conducting state that allows electricity to flow to the trailer brakes.
Bean and Ewel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of trailer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean to incorporate the teachings of the electromechanical break-away switch that operates the switch in an open state in normal operation and activates the switch when a decoupling event occurs as taught by Ewel based on the motivation to provide a redundant power system to maintain power on the trailer to activate the braking mechanism when the trailer separates. This provides the benefit of improving the safety of the trailer system by ensuring the braking capability is available even after decoupling from the towing vehicle.
Bean and Ewel does not explicitly teach transmitting an alert notification to the electronic device via the wireless communication unit when the trailer connection status indicates that the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle.
However, Decker discloses a wireless breakaway cable alert system that transmits an alert notification to an electronic device via wireless communication unit when the trailer connector status indicates the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle ([0018] [0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the system uses a wireless transceiver to notify a remote device when a trailer separation event occurs.
Bean, Ewel, and Decker are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of trailer safety systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean and Ewel to incorporate the teachings of transmitting a wireless alert signal upon breakaway separation of the trailer as taught by Decker based on the motivation to immediately notify the driver that a separation event of the trailer and towing vehicle has occurred. This provides the benefit of allowing the driver to react to the separation event and potentially mitigate any dangerous accidents.
Regarding Claim 2, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 1. Bean further teaches the trailer states further include a battery status indicating an amount of electric power currently remaining in the battery (The PMU monitors and reports the battery charge level; [0033]); and
wherein the active mode further includes an operation of the processing unit providing the trailer states to the electronic device via the wireless communication unit to make the electronic device display the trailer states (The system transmits trailer status data via wireless unit to the user device for display; [0060] [0065] [0070]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 1. Bean further teaches in a case that the charging unit does not receive the external power supply from the external power supply terminal but receives a solar power supply from a solar panel, the processing unit controlling the charging unit to charge the battery using the solar power supply from the solar panel (The PMU can receive power from solar panels and charge the battery from this source when tractor power is unavailable or insufficient; [0032]), and the processing unit operating in a sleeping mode that includes an operation of cutting off the wireless network connection with the electronic device (The system enters a sleep mode and turns off the trailer sensors to converse power; [0039] [0052] [0106]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 1. Bean further teaches storing a current position of the electronic device as an alert location and outputting the alert location when the electronic device determines that the alert requirement is met (The system utilizes GPS coordinates for tracking and alerting users to the user device of the location; [0089]).
Bean and Ewel does not explicitly teach the electronic device determining whether an alert requirement is met, and the alert requirement is that the electronic device loses the wireless network connection with the processing unit when the processing unit is operating in the active mode.
However, Decker discloses monitoring the wireless connection status for breakaway faults from the device and determines if there is a breakaway safe signal so that a breakaway safe action, such as an audible or visible safe signal, can be performed ([0046]). In a separate embodiment, Decker teaches that the breakaway detector sends a presence signal to the brake controller at regular intervals that is the breakaway safe signal to verify the wireless connection and status between the two nodes, if there is no presence signal then a fault is determined and sends an alert ([0047]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of the electronic device determining whether an alert requirement is met and the alert requirement is that the electronic device loses the wireless network connection with the processing unit when the processing unit is operating in the active mode because the device monitors the signals to determine if the wireless connection is connected and provides an alert when no presence signal is received. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bean and Ewel to incorporate the teachings of an alert upon the loss of wireless connection as taught by Decker based on the motivation to inform the operator that the monitoring system has been disconnected or has failed at the position of disconnection. This provides the benefit of recording the last known location where the trailer was connected and the point of the wireless connection was lost.
Regarding Claim 5, Bean teaches a trailer safety device adapted to be mounted on a trailer, the trailer including an electronic braking system (A smart trailer system mounted on a trailer that implements safety and security controls with the trailer’s emergency air brake system; [0008] [0024] [0035]), said trailer safety device comprising: a processing unit adapted to be wirelessly connected to an electronic device; a charging unit electrically connected to said processing unit; a state monitor electrically connected to said processing unit; a wireless communication unit electrically connected to said processing unit (A master controller electrically connected to a plurality of sensor interface boards, power management unit, and cellular/Wi-Fi modems; [0026] [0028] [0033] [0036]);
a battery electrically connected to said charging unit (A backup battery connected to the PMU to power the system; [0031]);
wherein said processing unit is configured to, when said charging unit receives an external power supply from an external power supply terminal, control said charging unit to charge said battery using the external power supply, and operate in an active mode (The PMU receives tractor power and manages the charging of the battery operating in a normal/active mode; [0030] [0032] [0043]),
wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the active mode,
establish a wireless network connection with the electronic device via said wireless communication unit (The system establishes a wireless connection with the user’s mobile device; [0037] [0069]),
control said state monitor to monitor trailer states that include a trailer connection status indicating a status of connection of the trailer with the tow vehicle (The system monitors the connection status by sensing voltage at the connector; [0226]).
Bean does not explicitly teach a breakaway switch electrically connected to said battery, having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, and adapted to be electrically connected to the electronic braking system of the trailer, said breakaway switch being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, thereby providing electric power from said battery to the electronic braking system of the trailer for activating the electronic braking system.
However, Ewel discloses an electromechanical trailer break-away switch system. Ewel teaches a trailer break-away switch that energizes a towed trailer brake in a decoupling event of a trailer that is connected to the stored energy battery source ([0022]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a breakaway switch electrically connected to said battery, having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, and adapted to be electrically connected to the electronic braking system of the trailer because the trailer break-away switch is connected to the stored energy battery source that energizes the towed trailer brakes. Ewel further teaches a normal operation where the switch operates as an open switch between the battery and when an unintended decoupling event occurs from the towing vehicle, a pin is pulled to activate the switch to electrically power the trailer brake ([0022]). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed limitation of the breakaway switch being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, thereby providing electric power from said battery to the electronic braking system of the trailer for activating the electronic braking system because in the normal operation mode, the switch is in an open state, analogous to the non-conducting state, and when the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle the switch is activated to a conducting state that allows electricity to flow to the trailer brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean to incorporate the teachings of the electromechanical break-away switch that operates the switch in an open state in normal operation and activates the switch when a decoupling event occurs as taught by Ewel based on the motivation to provide a redundant power system to maintain power on the trailer to activate the braking mechanism when the trailer separates. This provides the benefit of improving the safety of the trailer system by ensuring the braking capability is available even after decoupling from the towing vehicle.
Bean and Ewel does not explicitly teach transmit an alert notification to the electronic device via said wireless communication unit when the trailer connection status indicates that the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle.
However, Decker discloses a wireless breakaway cable alert system that transmits an alert notification to an electronic device via wireless communication unit when the trailer connector status indicates the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle ([0018] [0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the system uses a wireless transceiver to notify a remote device when a trailer separation event occurs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean and Ewel to incorporate the teachings of transmitting a wireless alert signal upon breakaway separation of the trailer as taught by Decker based on the motivation to immediately notify the driver that a separation event of the trailer and towing vehicle has occurred. This provides the benefit of allowing the driver to react to the separation event and potentially mitigate any dangerous accidents.
Regarding Claim 6, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 5. Bean further teaches the trailer states further include a battery status indicating an amount of electric power currently remaining in said battery (The PMU monitors and reports the battery charge level; [0033]); and wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the active mode, provide the trailer states to the electronic device via said wireless communication unit to make the electronic device display the trailer states (The system transmits trailer status data via wireless unit to the user device for display; [0060] [0065] [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 5. Bean further teaches in a case that said charging unit does not receive the external power supply from the external power supply terminal but receives a solar power supply from a solar panel, control said charging unit to charge said battery using the solar power supply from the solar panel (The PMU can receive power from solar panels and charge the battery from this source when tractor power is unavailable or insufficient; [0032]), and operate in a sleeping mode; and wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the sleeping mode, cut off the wireless network connection with the electronic device (The system enters a sleep mode and turns off the trailer sensors to converse power; [0039] [0052] [0106]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bean teaches a trailer safety system, comprising: a trailer safety device adapted to be mounted on a trailer, the trailer including an electronic braking system (A smart trailer system mounted on a trailer that implements safety and security controls with the trailer’s emergency air brake system; [0008] [0024] [0035]),
said trailer safety device including a processing unit adapted to be wirelessly connected to an electronic device, a charging unit electrically connected to said processing unit, a state monitor electrically connected to said processing unit, a wireless communication unit electrically connected to said processing unit (A master controller electrically connected to a plurality of sensor interface boards, power management unit, and cellular/Wi-Fi modems; [0026] [0028] [0033] [0036]),
a battery electrically connected to said charging unit (A backup battery connected to the PMU to power the system; [0031])
wherein said processing unit is configured to, when said charging unit receives an external power supply from an external power supply terminal, control said charging unit to charge said battery using the external power supply, and operate in an active mode (The PMU receives tractor power and manages the charging of the battery operating in a normal/active mode; [0030] [0032] [0043]),
wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the active mode,
establish a wireless network connection with the electronic device via said wireless communication unit (The system establishes a wireless connection with the user’s mobile device; [0037] [0069]),
control said state monitor to monitor trailer states that include a trailer connection status indicating a status of connection of the trailer with the tow vehicle (The system monitors the connection status by sensing voltage at the connector; [0226]).
Bean does not explicitly teach a breakaway switch electrically connected to said battery, having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, and adapted to be electrically connected to the electronic braking system of the trailer, said breakaway switch being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, thereby providing electric power from said battery to the electronic braking system of the trailer for activating the electronic braking system.
However, Ewel discloses an electromechanical trailer break-away switch system. Ewel teaches a trailer break-away switch that energizes a towed trailer brake in a decoupling event of a trailer that is connected to the stored energy battery source ([0022]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a breakaway switch electrically connected to said battery, having a non-conducting state and a conducting state, and adapted to be electrically connected to the electronic braking system of the trailer because the trailer break-away switch is connected to the stored energy battery source that energizes the towed trailer brakes. Ewel further teaches a normal operation where the switch operates as an open switch between the battery and when an unintended decoupling event occurs from the towing vehicle, a pin is pulled to activate the switch to electrically power the trailer brake ([0022]). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed limitation of the breakaway switch being caused to switch from the non-conducting state to the conducting state when the trailer is separated from a tow vehicle, thereby providing electric power from said battery to the electronic braking system of the trailer for activating the electronic braking system because in the normal operation mode, the switch is in an open state, analogous to the non-conducting state, and when the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle the switch is activated to a conducting state that allows electricity to flow to the trailer brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean to incorporate the teachings of the electromechanical break-away switch that operates the switch in an open state in normal operation and activates the switch when a decoupling event occurs as taught by Ewel based on the motivation to provide a redundant power system to maintain power on the trailer to activate the braking mechanism when the trailer separates. This provides the benefit of improving the safety of the trailer system by ensuring the braking capability is available even after decoupling from the towing vehicle.
Bean and Ewel does not explicitly teach transmit an alert notification to the electronic device via said wireless communication unit when the trailer connection status indicates that the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle.
However, Decker discloses a wireless breakaway cable alert system that transmits an alert notification to an electronic device via wireless communication unit when the trailer connector status indicates the trailer is separated from the tow vehicle ([0018] [0023]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the system uses a wireless transceiver to notify a remote device when a trailer separation event occurs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bean and Ewel to incorporate the teachings of transmitting a wireless alert signal upon breakaway separation of the trailer as taught by Decker based on the motivation to immediately notify the driver that a separation event of the trailer and towing vehicle has occurred. This provides the benefit of allowing the driver to react to the separation event and potentially mitigate any dangerous accidents.
Regarding Claim 9, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 8. Bean further teaches the trailer states further include a battery status indicating an amount of electric power currently remaining in said battery (The PMU monitors and reports the battery charge level; [0033]); and wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the active mode, provide the trailer states to the electronic device via said wireless communication unit to make the electronic device display the trailer states (The system transmits trailer status data via wireless unit to the user device for display; [0060] [0065] [0070]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 8. Bean further teaches in a case that said charging unit does not receive the external power supply from the external power supply terminal, but receives a solar power supply from a solar panel, control said charging unit to charge said battery using the solar power supply from the solar panel (The PMU can receive power from solar panels and charge the battery from this source when tractor power is unavailable or insufficient; [0032]), and operate in a sleeping mode; and wherein said processing unit is further configured to, when operating in the sleeping mode, cut off the wireless network connection with the electronic device (The system enters a sleep mode and turns off the trailer sensors to converse power; [0039] [0052] [0106]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bean, Ewel, and Decker remains as applied above in claim 8. Bean further teaches store a current position of the electronic device as an alert location and output the alert location when the electronic device determines that the alert requirement is met (The system utilizes GPS coordinates for tracking and alerting users to the user device of the location; [0089]).
Bean and Ewel does not explicitly teach the electronic device that is configured to determine whether an alert requirement is met, and to wherein the alert requirement is that the electronic device loses the wireless network connection with said processing unit when said processing unit is in the active mode.
However, Decker discloses monitoring the wireless connection status for breakaway faults from the device and determines if there is a breakaway safe signal so that a breakaway safe action, such as an audible or visible safe signal, can be performed ([0046]). In a separate embodiment, Decker teaches that the breakaway detector sends a presence signal to the brake controller at regular intervals that is the breakaway safe signal to verify the wireless connection and status between the two nodes, if there is no presence signal then a fault is determined and sends an alert ([0047]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of the electronic device that is configured to determine whether an alert requirement is met, and to wherein the alert requirement is that the electronic device loses the wireless network connection with said processing unit when said processing unit is in the active mode because the device monitors the signals to determine if the wireless connection is connected and provides an alert when no presence signal is received. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bean and Ewel to incorporate the teachings of an alert upon the loss of wireless connection as taught by Decker based on the motivation to inform the operator that the monitoring system has been disconnected or has failed at the position of disconnection. This provides the benefit of recording the last known location where the trailer was connected and the point of the wireless connection was lost.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Brady (US 20200231120 A1)
Boling (US 20130147617 A1)
MacGregor (US 20030006644 A1)
Lange (US 20190111899 A1)
Johnson (US 7683585 B1)
Williams (US 20190315170 A1)
Smith (US 20220227336 A1)
Work (US 20070235071 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663